Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:52 pm  

Im with Darrell re: the public sector

Although a lot of public sector in Hull are now having to live in the real world

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:39 am  

Chris28 wrote:

I hope you and your loved ones never suffer from anything like it. It might affect your high and mighty attitude.

If you do go off sick for any reason, I imagine you'd be happy for all your work to pile up for your return too.

Jesus.

I have being off work before for what the doc described on the sick note as stress when i was going through a divorce, he signed me off for 2 weeks, the difference with me was i went back to docs after a week cos i felt ok and he signed me back on. My point was that too many people nowadays take advantage of our employment laws, docs should be lot tougher on who they sign off and for how long and employers particularaly public sector need to be a lot stricter on how long they pay people for.
On a side issue there where 1.3million people in this country claiming incapacity benefit (stress related illness' are included in these figures) when the government brought in the new tests,
ONLY 7% were found to be incapable of any work
17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support
39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance
36% dropped out of the application process
1% of applications were still in progress

36% Dropped out the process all together because they new they would not pass! What does that tell you??

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:59 am  

VerbalKint wrote:

36% Dropped out the process all together because they new they would not pass! What does that tell you??

That you've taken a figure, put your own agenda to it and reported it as a fact.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:05 am  

Bal wrote:

That you've taken a figure, put your own agenda to it and reported it as a fact.

I agree to a point,

although, if you thought you deserved it, why would you drop the claim?

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:07 am  

Bal wrote: That you've taken a figure, put your own agenda to it and reported it as a fact. Sorry, i should have said what i sumise from that figure (which is a published fact) is that 36% of people dropped out because they new they had no hope of passing the test and hence being found fit for work. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849 But hey if your happy with hundreds of thousands claiming benefits they are not entitled too while our taxes continue to rise to pay for them then good luck to you.

Bal wrote: That you've taken a figure, put your own agenda to it and reported it as a fact. Sorry, i should have said what i sumise from that figure (which is a published fact) is that 36% of people dropped out because they new they had no hope of passing the test and hence being found fit for work. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849 But hey if your happy with hundreds of thousands claiming benefits they are not entitled too while our taxes continue to rise to pay for them then good luck to you.

[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:13 am  

OmneFC wrote:

I agree to a point,

although, if you thought you deserved it, why would you drop the claim?

Because the new claim form is complex, confusing, and intimidating for a start - this according to assessment from MPs as well as various disabled groups. Then there are the people who find the idea of being tested for a condition their doctor has already diagnosed them with and they have had for years humiliating.

Tens of thousands of people don't apply for benefits that they're entitled to every single year for a wide variety of reasons.

The vast majority of sickness/disability claimants believe that they deserve it.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:14 am  

I think we are confusing two different things here, and at the risk of enraging at least one of the mods, I will explain.

genuine mental illness is a massive issue, and very many people suffer it through no fault of their own, it appears to me (and many, many others) that Gleeson's issues are, by and large, self inflicted from decisions he made, Wigan got rid because they could see he wasn't capabale of remaining a comitted RL player, when it was rumoured we would sign him many Wigan fans (and fans of other clubs) warned us about him, and yet we still signed him, that is what most people find irritiating, the same was as we signed Long ahwn Saints only offered him a year, and they were proven right too. We have also done the same with Radford and Horne, signing players on sentiment and not hard nosed (and possibly unappetable) business logic.

As I have said before, I hope he is getting all the support he needs, but if he is "well" enough to go to the rugby and out on the beer then he is "well" enough to be attending the club training sessions, doing work in schools and the wider community.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:14 am  

Bal wrote:

And suicide rates would rocket.

Has anybody considered that stress related illnesses in this country might be rocketing for many many reasons, including it been a pretty stressful society to live in. Family in-balance, recession, job cuts....

So, the answer to those problems is for the goverment to turn around and say, "You know what, lets try and solve that problem by telling all of those people that if they want to be depressed, we can only afford for them to be depressed for a week? That should sort out those "stress" related issues"....

I doubt someone with a heavy cold or a sprained ankle would be tempted to kill themselves if tehy had to get back to work more quickly

[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:16 am  

VerbalKint wrote: Sorry, i should have said what i sumise from that figure (which is a published fact) is that 36% of people dropped out because they new they had no hope of passing the test and hence being found fit for work. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849 But hey if your happy with hundreds of thousands claiming benefits they are not entitled too while our taxes continue to rise to pay for them then good luck to you. You probably ought to read articles that you link to in support of your argument... These figures - which echo previously published statistics - need to be seen in context. They are more complicated than whether somebody is fit to work or not. For example, those who drop out of the assessment process may still have a legitimate claim. For instance, someone with a mental health problem may find the process too difficult to stick with. Today's select committee report says more needs to be done to understand why people are dropping out. In addition, a significant number of cases go to appeal and 39% of the decisions are overturned. Finally, changes to the work capability assessment were introduced at the start of the year because of serious criticism about how the system was working. We do not know what impact that has had on the figures yet. Fail.

VerbalKint wrote: Sorry, i should have said what i sumise from that figure (which is a published fact) is that 36% of people dropped out because they new they had no hope of passing the test and hence being found fit for work. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14280849 But hey if your happy with hundreds of thousands claiming benefits they are not entitled too while our taxes continue to rise to pay for them then good luck to you. You probably ought to read articles that you link to in support of your argument... These figures - which echo previously published statistics - need to be seen in context. They are more complicated than whether somebody is fit to work or not. For example, those who drop out of the assessment process may still have a legitimate claim. For instance, someone with a mental health problem may find the process too difficult to stick with. Today's select committee report says more needs to be done to understand why people are dropping out. In addition, a significant number of cases go to appeal and 39% of the decisions are overturned. Finally, changes to the work capability assessment were introduced at the start of the year because of serious criticism about how the system was working. We do not know what impact that has had on the figures yet. Fail.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:17 am  

Standee wrote:

I think we are confusing two different things here, and at the risk of enraging at least one of the mods, I will explain.

genuine mental illness is a massive issue, and very many people suffer it through no fault of their own, it appears to me (and many, many others) that Gleeson's issues are, by and large, self inflicted from decisions he made, Wigan got rid because they could see he wasn't capabale of remaining a comitted RL player, when it was rumoured we would sign him many Wigan fans (and fans of other clubs) warned us about him, and yet we still signed him, that is what most people find irritiating, the same was as we signed Long ahwn Saints only offered him a year, and they were proven right too. We have also done the same with Radford and Horne, signing players on sentiment and not hard nosed (and possibly unappetable) business logic.

As I have said before, I hope he is getting all the support he needs, but if he is "well" enough to go to the rugby and out on the beer then he is "well" enough to be attending the club training sessions, doing work in schools and the wider community.

I think we signed those players out of desparation, not sentiment